JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - In this writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised an interesting point of issue which is read as follows: Whether the High Court of Orissa is competent to quash a criminal complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi. Mr. G.K. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the issuance of summons dated 15.5.2012 by the Metropolitan Magistrate-2 (South). N.I. Act, Room No. 505, Saket Courts Complex. New Delhi in C.C. No. 157 of 2012 is without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that from the invoices as raised by the opposite party/complainant, contains a clause that if any dispute arises for material supplied, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Kasipur Court and the said Court is alone competent to try the case. Therefore, the initiation of a complaint case by the opposite party/complainant in New Delhi before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate is without jurisdiction. It is further stated that the petitioner had issued cheque from the bank account at Cuttack and the opposite party/complainant had received the cheque at Cuttack, therefore, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint at Cuttack. It is further claimed that the cheque in question had been issued by the petitioner by way of scrutiny. 2. With reference to the aforesaid contentions, this Court is required to examine the following point: (iii) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to interfere with the institution of the complaint lodged by the complainant, opposite party No. 1". 3. On the question of jurisdiction, reliance has placed by the petitioner on a judgment of this Court in W.P. (Cri.) No. 138 of 2005 disposed of on 22.2.2011, Sri Kailash Chandra Misra v. Shri Ajitsinh Ulhasrao Babar, and in particular, the conclusion reached therein in paragraph 15 which are quoted hereunder: 15. Insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, since the cheque was issued by the petitioner at Balasore and the cheque was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, cause of action had taken place in the State of Orissa. Therefore, institution of said complaint at Daman in the State of Uttaranchal is not maintainable. Insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, since the cheque was issued by the petitioner at Balasore and the cheque was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, cause of action had taken place in the State of Orissa. Therefore, institution of said complaint at Daman in the State of Uttaranchal is not maintainable. Further, though the complaint is lodged at Daman in the state of Uttaranchal, in view of the amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petition filed before this Court, questioning the correctness of the same and seeking to wash the proceedings initiated at Daman, is perfectly maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. In the light of submission advanced by Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to note that the prayer made by the present petitioner which is as follows: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of writs to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 157 of 2012 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-2 (South), N.I. Act. Room No. 505. Saket Courts complex. New Delhi, vide Annexure-7. 5. It would be apt to take note of the Article 226(1) and (2) and Article 227(1) of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs--(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate oases, any Government within those territories directions orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, [for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose]. (2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within whose territories." "227. Power of superintendence over all Courts by the High Court-- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the question that arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether the Orissa High Court possesses the necessary jurisdiction to quash the order of cognizance passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi. 7. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner laid great emphasis on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra (supra). In paragraph-8 of the said judgment the contention of the petitioner therein was that the complaint petition filed at Daman is not maintainable in law and that the Orissa High Court has the necessary jurisdiction to examine the legality of the summons issued against the petitioner in view of the "amendment to Article 226" of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition, since the cause of action has occurred at Balasore and Bhubaneswar, though complaint petition is filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daman. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., wherein the Apex Court placing reliance upon Section 138 and 141 of N.I. Act, purportedly held that the writ petition is maintainable. 8. This Court while deciding the case of Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra (supra), placed reliance on the "amendment to Article 226" of the Constitution of India and referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (supra) and came to conclude that the writ petition before the High Court of Orissa was maintainable, "in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner." 9. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Mishra v. Ajitsinh Ulhasrao Babar, the relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Mishra v. Ajitsinh Ulhasrao Babar, the relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics Private Limited and another v. National Panasonic India Private Limited. 10. The essential facts of that case is that the drawer of the cheque as well as the payee were both located at Chandigarh. On the dishonour of the cheque, a notice was issued to the drawer on behalf of the payee, by Counsel located at New Delhi. After such notice was issued, a complaint was lodged on behalf of the payee at New Delhi. The drawer of the cheque objected to filing of the complaint at New Delhi and after having failed to get his grievance redressed before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the Delhi High Court, ultimately approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded in the aforesaid case that the place of issue of notice u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was not adequate to from the basis for initiating a proceeding u/s 138 N.I. Act. Once a notice is issued, the same must be served on an accused in order to form a foundation for initiating a complaint case. In the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the notice though issued by a lawyer located at New Delhi was served on the accused at Chandigarh and hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold that no part of cause of action to lodge complaint arose at New Delhi and resorting to its authority vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed transfer of the case from New Delhi to Chandigarh. 23. For the views we have taken it must be held that the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. We, however, while exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that Complaint Case No. 1549 pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi transferred to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who shall assign the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction. We, however, while exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that Complaint Case No. 1549 pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi transferred to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who shall assign the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction. The transferee Court shall fix a specific date of hearing and shall not grant any adjournment on the date on which the complainant and its witnesses are present. The transferee Court is furthermore directed to dispose of the matter with a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of the case on assignment by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. In the light of the facts as noted hereinabove, two important points need to be noted, the first being that challenge to initiation of complaint case at New Delhi, was made by the drawer of the cheque/accused at New Delhi. The said person after not getting any relief from the Delhi High Court moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. That was not a case where the drawer/accused approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, claiming that the Delhi Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. 13. The second distinctive fact being that, the authority of the Supreme Court of India to determine the question as to whether the Court at New Delhi was competent or not, was within its competency and consequently utilizing its power under Article 142, directed the transfer of the case from New Delhi to the Courts at Chandigarh. In the present case the petitioner has chosen not to seek any relief before any Superior Court at New Delhi and instead has chosen to question the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, by initiating a proceeding before the Orissa High Court. The Orissa High Court clearly is not vested with the power under Article 142 to direct transfer of a case from one State to another. 14. In the light of the findings' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically concluded that, the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. The Orissa High Court clearly is not vested with the power under Article 142 to direct transfer of a case from one State to another. 14. In the light of the findings' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically concluded that, the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (supra) does not support the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the High Court of Delhi had the necessary jurisdiction to try this case. 15. In the case of Harman Electronics (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India came about as a result of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commission, India Vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and, and subsequent cases, wherein it was location or residence of the respondent which gave territorial jurisdiction to a High Court under Article 226. the situs of the cause of action being immaterial for this purpose. The decision of the Supreme Court led to the result that only the High Court of Punjab would have jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 226 against the Union of India and those other bodies which were located in Delhi. The object of Clause (1A), inserted by the 15th Amendment Act, 1963, which has been renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, was to restore the view taken by the High Courts and to provide that, the High Court within which the cause of action arise wholly or in part, would also have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 against the Union of India or any other body which were located in Delhi. The Amendment thus supersedes the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary. 16. In this respect, it becomes important to take note of various provisions of Constitution of India regarding the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. In Part-I of the Constitution of India under Article 1, it has been declared that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States and under sub-article (2) the States and the territories thereof have been specified in the first Schedule. In Part-I of the Constitution of India under Article 1, it has been declared that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States and under sub-article (2) the States and the territories thereof have been specified in the first Schedule. Under sub-article (3) the territory of India has been defined as (a) the territories of the States. In the First Schedule of the Constitution of India at Serial No. 10, the State of Orissa and the territory thereof is noted as follows: The territories which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were either comprises in the Province of Orissa or were being administered as if they formed part of that province. 17. In Part-VI of the Constitution of India, various aspects relating to the State is indicated and in Chapter-V under Article 214 it has been declared that there shall be a High Court for each State. Insofar as Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, while every High Court has been vested with the power to issue directions orders or writs including the writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition quo warranto and certiorari (as substituted by the Constitution, (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 and all such directions, orders or writs may be issued by every High Court throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Under Article 227 of the Constitution every High Court is vested with the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It would be relevant to take note of Article 228 of the Constitution where every High Court is vested with the power to transfer a case from "a Court subordinate to it" if a case involves any substantial question of law. 18. The aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of India which are referred to hereinabove clearly stipulate that "territorial jurisdiction of any State" is confined to the territory specified for each State in Schedule-I of the Constitution. Article 214 of the Constitution mandates that there shall be a High Court in each State and such a High Court under Article 226 shall have powers "throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", obviously, the territorial jurisdiction being the territory determined for the State in Schedule-I and no other. 19. Article 214 of the Constitution mandates that there shall be a High Court in each State and such a High Court under Article 226 shall have powers "throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", obviously, the territorial jurisdiction being the territory determined for the State in Schedule-I and no other. 19. Under Article 227, the High Court is vested with the power of superintendence only over those Courts and Tribunals throughout its territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Therefore, it clearly refers to the "territory of a State" as contained in Schedule-I of the Constitution. Under Article 228 while the High Court has power and authority to transfer a case pending before any "Court subordinate to it", such a Court subordinate must be within the territorial limit to exercise jurisdiction. I have extracted various aspects of the Constitution determining the scope and ambit and territorial jurisdiction of the High Court including Orissa High Court which arises for consideration. Therefore, while, Orissa High Court has been established under Article 214 of the Constitution of India read with Article 226, such High Court has power to issue directions, orders or writs only "throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Therefore, the territory as defined in Schedule-I of the Constitution and no other. Similarly, the Orissa High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is competent to exercise its power of superintendence only over those Courts and Tribunals located in the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction i.e., the area stipulated in the First Schedule pertaining to the State of Orissa and no other. Similarly, for the purpose of analogy, the Orissa High Court exercises power to transfer a case from one Court to another located within the territory of the State of Orissa and which are subordinate to it as defined and stipulated in Schedule-I of the Constitution of India. 20. In the light of the analysis made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise of authority/powers vested in it by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, such power and authority must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. Any attempt made by a litigant in order to coerce a Court to exceed its territorial jurisdiction, must be stoutly guarded. Any failure to do so, could lead to judicial chaos and anarchy. Any attempt made by a litigant in order to coerce a Court to exceed its territorial jurisdiction, must be stoutly guarded. Any failure to do so, could lead to judicial chaos and anarchy. Accepting the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would, in my view, lead to legal chaos since, every High Court would then be held to be empowered to quash a proceeding of a Subordinate Court of any other State and in my considered view the founding fathers of the nation and framers of the Constitution, fixed territorial limits of every High Court to try and ensure that while all constitutional bodies including the Courts would be free to exercise jurisdiction and authority within their respect territorial jurisdiction any attempt to exceed the same was clearly unconstitutional. It is very often stated in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that greater the power or authority, greater should be the care and caution in exercise of such authority. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Mishra (supra) has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (supra). This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not an authority for the proposition that, the Orissa High Court would have jurisdiction to quash a proceeding pending before a Court located outside the territory of Orissa. 22. In the case at hand, without entering into the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner relating to alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, an aggrieved party must be made to abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of India. Such a plea and/or grievance can only be redressed by a Superior Court located within the territory where the proceeding purportedly albeit without jurisdiction has been entertained and/or initiated. If any further grievance exists thereafter that party has every right to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also seek the exercise of power under Article 142. Such a plea and/or grievance can only be redressed by a Superior Court located within the territory where the proceeding purportedly albeit without jurisdiction has been entertained and/or initiated. If any further grievance exists thereafter that party has every right to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also seek the exercise of power under Article 142. In the light of the above, I have no hesitation to conclude that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable, inasmuch as, for the reason that the petition filed before this Court with a prayer to quash the proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi is not a Court subordinate to the Orissa High Court. Consequently, the Orissa High Court does not possess the necessary power of superintendence as provided under Articles 227. 23. It is also pertinent to note herein that the term "cause of action" has always considered alongwith the nature of relief sought and not independent to each other. In the present case at hand prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-2 (South) N.I. Act, Room No. 505, Saket Courts Complex. New Delhi to quash a complaint case pending before him and, therefore, clearly the limitation of jurisdiction found in Articles 226 and 227 apply to this case. In the complaint petition (Annexure-B) to the writ petition and in particular para-6 thereof the following as fact has been asserted. That complainant deposited the aforesaid cheques with its banker State Bank of Patiala, Mahipal Pur Branch, New Delhi for the encashment within the period of validity, however, to the surprise of complainant the cheques were returned by accused's banker, Union Bank of India, with the reason "insufficient fund" in the account of accused. That complainant deposited the aforesaid cheques with its banker State Bank of Patiala, Mahipal Pur Branch, New Delhi for the encashment within the period of validity, however, to the surprise of complainant the cheques were returned by accused's banker, Union Bank of India, with the reason "insufficient fund" in the account of accused. Therefore, in terms of both the judgments of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (supra) as well as the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, prima facie, the Court of the Metropolitan-Magistrate, New Delhi was competent to register the complaint Therefore, in the light of the distinctions drawn hereinabove, there can be no doubt whatsoever that if a party is aggrieved by an order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, he has every right to challenge the said order before the Superior. Court at New Delhi and thereafter, if any grievance subsists, may also approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which alone is vested with power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations and findings arrived at, the writ petition merits no further consideration and stands, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed